IHEDN Mondays are now available in audio format!
Click below to listen:
Associate researcher at Scott Polar Research Institute in the Department of Geography at Cambridge University in the UK, French geographer Émilie Canova is also a member of the Arctic Observatory the Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS) and the Directorate General for International Relations and Strategy (DGRIS) of the Ministry of Defence.
A graduate of the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Émilie Canova defended her doctoral thesis in Polar Studies at Cambridge in early 2025. «Arctic-Europe relations: A case-study of inter-regional co-construction and its geopolitical impacts».». In the field of political geography, she is particularly interested in relations between the European Union and the Arctic, in a context marked by rapid climatic and geopolitical change.
WHY WOULD GREENLAND BE NECESSARY FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS DONALD TRUMP CLAIMS? ARE CHINA AND RUSSIA A THREAT THERE?
Greenland has a strategic position in the Arctic, particularly for continental missile defence, but the United States' national security is already assured by the agreements in place between it and the Kingdom of Denmark.
The United States does not need to acquire Greenland to ensure its security. The 1951 defence agreement (renegotiated in 2004) allows for an increase in US military capabilities on the island. Furthermore, by 2025, Denmark and NATO have decided to invest nearly 14 billion dollars to strengthen security and defence in the Arctic and the North Atlantic, as indicated in the Arctic Joint Command, based in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland.
Furthermore, contrary to what Donald Trump claims, there are no direct Russian or Chinese threats. Since 2022, Russia has obviously increased its hybrid threats in the Nordic countries, but it is not directly threatening Greenland as Trump says.
As for China, it has no military capabilities in the Arctic; only two exercises have been conducted by China towards the Bering Strait since 2020. Its interests are economic (the North-East Sea Route, investment - still limited - in resource extraction infrastructures, particularly in Greenland) and scientific (a scientific base in the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, like other countries), to support its desire to play a greater role in the governance of the region.
Already in 2019, during a speech at the Arctic Council ministerial meeting in Rovaniemi (Finland), Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State in the first Trump administration, projected the global US-China rivalry onto the region. The other Arctic countries monitor Chinese activities but do not perceive them as much of a threat as the United States.
PRESIDENT TRUMP VIEWS THE ACQUISITION OF THE ISLAND AS A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. IS THIS APPROACH COMPATIBLE WITH THE GREENLAND PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND CURRENT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY?
No. Trump's vision of Greenland as «a piece of ice» or a real estate transaction completely disregards the Greenlandic people and does not respect their right to self-determination or their desire for independence. It is behaving like a new colonial power. The people of Greenland have made it clear that for them there is «no better coloniser».
Today, according to opinion polls, 85% of the Greenlandic people are against attachment to the United States. An «acquisition» against the will of the Greenlandic people would therefore be contrary to international law.
Since 1946, the UN has considered Greenland to be a «non-self-governing territory». According to the definition in Article 73 of Chapter XI of the UN Charter, these are «territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government».
IN RESPONSE TO THREATS OF ANNEXATION, SEVERAL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAVE DEPLOYED TROOPS ON GREENLANDIC SOIL. DOES THIS POTENTIAL DIRECT CONFRONTATION BETWEEN NATO ALLIES MARK THE END OF THE ARCTIC AS A ZONE OF «LOW TENSION»?
The end of Arctic exceptionalism goes back a few years, particularly since the Russian aggression in Ukraine and the subsequent pause in the Arctic Council (although it resumed its activities in May 2023), and the unravelling of cooperation structures such as the Barents Euro-Arctic Council.
Since then, the number of military exercises in the area has increased, both on the Russian side and on the NATO side, in particular to deal with the Russian threat. Contrary to what Trump claims, the Nordic countries, including Denmark, were already working to defend the Arctic region.
However, this sequence is a turning point insofar as it represents an escalation between allied countries. That said, the current exercise is intended to reassure us about the island's defence, and it seems to have been misinterpreted by Trump. As for his latest statements at the Davos forum, we should be wary of the impression they give of relaxation: the devil is in the detail, and we still don't know the precise terms of the agreement he is talking about.
DONALD TRUMP HAS THREATENED TO IMPOSE TAXES OF UP TO 25 % ON EUROPEAN PRODUCTS UNTIL A SALES AGREEMENT IS SIGNED. TO WHAT EXTENT COULD THIS UNIFY EU POLICY IN THE ARCTIC, WHICH YOU AND OTHER RESEARCHERS HAVE SHOWN TO LACK COHERENCE?
This whole sequence is a test for Europe. I'm not sure that it can unite it, but we can hope for a recomposition and a rapprochement of the Nordic countries with the EU and a firm and united response to Trump's threats.
The Arctic policies of European states are all somewhat similar: they emphasise the importance of climate change, the environment and the rights of indigenous peoples. These criteria are required for observer membership of the Arctic Council.
The aim, until 2022, was to maintain the region as a low-tension zone. In recent updates of national Arctic policies (Germany in 2024, and France recently), security issues are given much greater prominence, with in particular the recognition of Russia as a destabilising power.
Sweden, Finland and Denmark generally support the EU's action, but with a few reservations. They act as a kind of guardian of the Arctic vis-à-vis the EU, and vice versa, acting as a filter: which Arctic issues can be managed by the EU, and which European policies can be applied in the region.
This line has been increasingly difficult to hold since 2022, and particularly since Donald Trump's return to power in 2025. There is a strong need for unity, including Norway and Iceland, which are not members of the EU. But we can see that it is difficult: after the recent escalation, European states reacted in one communiqué, then the Nordic states in another.
GREENLAND ASPIRES TO TOTAL INDEPENDENCE FROM DENMARK, BUT REMAINS DEPENDENT ON ITS SUBSIDIES AND THOSE OF THE EU. HOW IS THE AMERICAN OFFER PERCEIVED ON THE ISLAND?
The American offer is not well received: as I said, for Greenlanders «there is no better coloniser». The majority want independence at all costs. This prospect is difficult to achieve in the short term, as there is still a great deal of dependence. Not only to the EU, which is providing €225 million in subsidies over 7 years, but also to Denmark, with its annual subsidy of €520 million. In comparison, American aid is much lower and irregular: around 500,000 dollars in 2024.
I would also like to emphasise an aspect that is not often mentioned: the Arctic region now seems to be divided into three blocs. One with the Nordic European countries and Canada, a bloc with which the EU and the UK are associated; a second with Russia; and a third with the United States.
Since Trump's re-election, the United States has shown very little interest in the Arctic Council, which includes among its fundamentals the fight against climate change and the inclusion of indigenous peoples, two things that this president rejects. The United States used to be the leading funder of scientific research in the area, but it is no longer.
The uncertainty of the US position under Trump and his predatory behaviour towards one Arctic Council state are completely destabilising circumpolar cooperation. Before his re-election, there were only two blocs in the Arctic Council: on one side seven Nordic states, including the United States, and on the other Russia. Now, the United States and Russia are two powers destabilising the region.
